Views: 0<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n To the Corinthians Paul wrote: \u201cFor if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me; for woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel\u201d (1 Cor. 9:16).[1]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Woe<\/em> is the usual term the prophets used to announce God\u2019s judgment on nations, cities, and individuals. The Lord frequently employed this term in crying out against sin and error among the Jewish leaders, using it seven times in Matthew 23 alone (KJV). Paul used the term in 1 Corinthians 9:16 in recognition that he was under the threat of God\u2019s judgment if he failed in his responsibility to preach the Gospel.<\/span><\/p>\n To ask what is appropriate in preaching is to imply that some behaviors and messages are appropriate, while others may be inappropriate. Our task is to discover and emphasize what Gospel preaching involves. While we will be thinking to a great degree of men who preach in pulpits and who devote their lives to preaching, the truths we will consider will apply in principle to every Christian. The New Testament confines to men public preaching that addresses mixed assemblies (1 Tim. 2:11\u201312); so no women may Scripturally devote their lives to this work. Of course, not all Christian men devote their lives to the work of preaching. However, there is a sense in which every child of God must be involved in \u201cpreaching\u201d\u2014communicating the Gospel to as many as possible. Though few may have been \u201cpreachers\u201d in any occupational sense, when Luke described the mass of brethren who had to flee Jerusalem because of the fiery persecution Saul of Tarsus incited, he said, \u201cthey went about preaching the word\u201d (Acts 8:4).<\/span><\/p>\n Preachers Must PREACH the Gospel<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The word preach<\/em> in 1 Corinthians 9:16 is from the Greek word euangelizo<\/em>, and, according to the Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon, it simply means to \u201cbring or announce good news\u2026. mostly specif. of the divine message of salvation, the Messianic proclamation, the gospel\u2026proclaim, preach.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n In its various forms, this term is found fifty-five times in the Greek New Testament. Through the pen of Mark, Jesus commanded: \u201cGo ye into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation\u201d (16:15). The Greek word behind preach<\/em> in this passage is kerusso<\/em>, which, in its various forms, is found sixty-one times in the New Testament. Joseph Henry Thayer defined this word, in part, as follows: \u201cto proclaim after the manner of a herald; always with a suggestion of formality, gravity, and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n One cannot read the history of God\u2019s preachers in the New Testament without being impressed with how authoritatively they preached, as the aforementioned definition of kerusso<\/em> indicates. They did not offer the Gospel message as one-among-several, good messages. They had not heard of politically correct religious pluralism. As the apostles began to execute the great commission, one is struck by the authority with which they preached the Gospel, beginning at Pentecost (Acts 2:14\u201340). They boldly proclaimed\u2014in the face of severe persecution\u2014that salvation was in the name of Christ alone (4:12). The apostles instructed \u201csecond generation\u201d preachers to preach in the same manner. Paul commanded Timothy to \u201cpreach the word\u201d so as to \u201creprove, rebuke, and exhort\u201d his auditors (2 Tim. 4:2). He ordered Titus to \u201cspeak and exhort and reprove with all authority\u201d (Tit. 2:15).<\/span><\/p>\n The Change-Agent phenomenon in the church has chosen worship as a major target (this matter will be discussed fully in other chapters). It has especially sought to undermine and weaken preaching, if not eliminate it altogether. The Change Agents know that they must get rid of forceful and faithful Gospel preaching if they are to fashion the church according to their denominational pattern. Precept precedes practice; practice follows doctrine. To change the practice, they must first silence the messenger or alter or replace the message. The outcry in the 1960s and 1970s against \u201cnegative\u201d and \u201cdogmatic\u201d preaching was the seedbed of this effort. It was an attempt to remove the authority status that true Gospel preaching has enjoyed from New Testament times. It has succeeded to a remarkable and alarming degree.<\/span><\/p>\n The attack on authoritative Gospel preaching is clearly demonstrated in such things as:<\/span><\/p>\n Another way the Change Agents have dumbed down the Biblical concept of Gospel preaching is by slyly introducing the word sharing<\/em> in reference to it. We do not read in God\u2019s Word of preachers who \u201cshared\u201d the Gospel with<\/strong> their hearers, but of those who \u201cpreached\u201d the Gospel to<\/strong> their hearers. As noted earlier, Christ commanded us to preach <\/strong>the Gospel and Paul commanded us to preach<\/strong> the Word.\u00a0 Preach<\/em> is an authoritative word that implies an authoritative message\u2014the Gospel. That is the reason the Holy Spirit employed it. Share<\/em> is a good word in some contexts, but in the context of delivering the Gospel, it is a milque-toast term for a milque-toast approach. That is the reason the Holy Spirit does not<\/strong> use it.<\/span><\/p>\n Communication experts in the secular world recognize the implications of the \u201csharing\u201d approach in public speaking. The Regan Report<\/em>, a newsletter for communications executives, observed several years ago that speakers who dote on \u201csharing\u201d when they make a speech do not really do so at all. It states:<\/span><\/p>\n They are being manipulatively humble and phonily democratic. They pretend that we have come for dialogue, but instead they speak and we listen with the foolish pretense that we are communicating with each other<\/strong>\u201d (emph. DM).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some time ago I was listening to the late well-known Rush Limbaugh\u2019s radio program and heard him discuss this very connotation of \u201csharing\u201d and its frequent use by political and philosophical liberals. He announced that he would thenceforth cease to use the term.<\/span><\/p>\n If this implication is true in business and other secular communication contexts, it is no less true in Gospel communication. Share<\/em> is one of those grossly overused \u201cin\u201d words (not only by preachers, but by speakers in the world) that I would like to see become an \u201cout\u201d word, especially by Gospel preachers. I have to strongly resist the urge to turn off a preacher when he begins saying he has something to \u201cshare\u201d with his hearers. The term is so overworked that one Sunday I heard a brother begin the announcements by saying, \u201cI want to share a few announcements with you.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Some may object that this distinction is more imaginary than real when it comes to preaching the Gospel. Indeed, it is not. Preach<\/em> correctly implies that the speaker delivers an authoritative message to others who need it and who should learn from it. This is always the relationship between the saved and the lost, the informed and the uninformed, respectively. Contrariwise, share<\/em>implies joint-communication, two-way exchange, dialogue between speaker and listeners involved, both of whom have a message needed by the other. This is obviously not the case between sinner and saint or the uninformed and the informed; the latter has what the former needs, but not vice versa.[5]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n The New Testament does not employ the idea of \u201csharing\u201d (either verbally or conceptually) in the work of preaching the Gospel. Further, one will be hard pressed to find the \u201csharing\u201d terminology used by the stalwart preachers of the nineteenth century and the first sixty years of the twentieth century.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201csharing\u201d concept in public speaking came a couple of generations ago from secular romantics and psychologists who did\/do not believe in the existence of objective truth or in the presentation of an authoritative message. It was an early manifestation of the rampant \u201cpolitical correctness\u201d in society today. First compromisers, followed by outright liberals among us, picked the term up and began using it, apparently thinking they could sort of \u201csneak up\u201d on sinners without really preaching the Gospel plainly to them. The \u201csharing\u201d terminology began to appear in our pulpits coordinate with the outcry against \u201cnegative\u201d and \u201cdogmatic\u201d preaching in the 1960s. More than coincidentally, the rapid numerical growth of the church began to decline at about the time this attitude began to take hold among preachers.<\/span><\/p>\n In recent years, \u201csharing\u201d has become one of the \u201cdarling\u201d words of liberals in the church whom some mistake for Gospel preachers\u2014and with good reason. Sharers<\/em> fits them far better than preachers<\/em>. They do not even like to be called<\/strong> \u201cpreachers\u201d because this word connotes Scriptural authority, which they despise. Just as they have rejected Scriptural boundaries for their own doctrine and practice, they shrink from emphasizing said authority to others. When they step into the pulpit, rather than preaching a Gospel sermon with some food for the soul, they must \u201cshare\u201d an experience, a poem, a lesson, a story, or something else (maybe even a Scripture occasionally!) in a pitiful 15\u201320-minute talk. Hundreds of congregations are languishing in Biblical beriberi and spiritual scurvy because they are hearing little or no Gospel preaching from such men. Brethren are being \u201cshared\u201d to death spiritually by these fellows week after week.<\/span><\/p>\n I have never heard a liberal speak or write very long who did not feel compelled to \u201cshare\u201d something. However, liberals are not the only ones who have adopted the \u201csharing\u201d terminology. I frequently hear it in prayers and sermons (and announcements, as noted above) from sound and faithful brethren. Certainly, one errs in concluding that everyone who employs the \u201csharing\u201d terminology is therefore a liberal. Faithful brethren who do so have been influenced by and are playing right into the hands of liberals without realizing it, however. I believe faithful brethren use the term out of habit, unconscious of either its origin or implications relating to public speaking in general and to preaching. I challenge such brethren to break the habit of \u201csharing\u201d in the pulpit or even in teaching a Bible class. It simply does not belong in a Biblical vocabulary relating to the authoritative communication of the Gospel.<\/span><\/p>\n The world and the church need far more than sickening-sweet \u201csharing\u201d of religious platitudes and pop-psychology. They need far more than a group of sissified, sanctimonious \u201creeds shaken with the wind\u201d (Mat. 11:7) masquerading as Gospel preachers, who care more about social and entertainment activities than they do for the Word of God and never-dying souls. The world and the church need to hear preaching<\/strong> by Gospel preachers<\/strong>. If one wishes to call me by some term he thinks I might consider derogatory, he will have to choose some term besides preacher.<\/em> Paul said, \u201cWoe is unto me, if I preach<\/strong> not the gospel.\u201dThe saying is quaint, but true: \u201cGod had but one Son, and He was a Gospel preacher.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Preachers Must Preach ONLY the Gospel<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Paul could preach no other message and please God; neither can any man. Those who preach a perverted or changed (attention Change Agents!) Gospel have the damnation of God resting upon them (Gal. 1:7\u20139). It matters not if a man is the companion of presidents and rulers, has written fifty and sold forty million books, and preaches for a church with four thousand members. It matters not if one is president of a \u201cChristian\u201d university or is a tenured religion faculty professor with a half-dozen PhDs. It is of no consequence if one has a TV audience of millions or can draw thousands to his metropolitan crusades. Nor does it matter if he mounts a pulpit in a building that still has \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d on its marquee. If he preaches anything different from the Holy Spirit-revealed Gospel, he is \u201canathema.\u201d<\/strong> The tragedy of the loss of the souls of such false prophets is compounded by the loss of all of those who follow them (Mat. 15:14).<\/span><\/p>\n We must preach only <\/strong>the Gospel, because it alone is the \u201cpower of God unto salvation\u201d (Rom. 1:16) and the sole means by which one is begotten of God (1 Cor. 4:15; Jam. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23). God therefore demands absolute purity in the Gospel message. In spite of this, preachers in religious bodies unauthorized by the Sacred Text waste their own time and souls and those of their hearers with discourses containing gross religious perversions. Many of them love to demonstrate their knowledge of psychology and philosophy but evince little or no knowledge of the Word of God.<\/span><\/p>\n It is sad beyond expression that it is little better in some of our pulpits. Some \u201cpreachers\u201d seem far more enamored with various wild speculations of infidel theologians and silly theories of modernistic skeptics than with what the Bible teaches. Others (both elders and preachers), who have not gone that far, are caught up in the \u201cgrow at any cost\u201d fads they have learned from the \u201ccommunity churches\u201d and other denominational mega-churches with their \u201csuper-star,\u201d \u201cdynamic\u201d pastors. Many in the pews are so Biblically ignorant, worldly, and materialistic in their thinking that they are willing to pay top dollar for such a man. Never mind the shallowness or outright error (in case they happened to recognize it) of the message, as long as the messenger is \u201cdynamic\u201d and can keep them awake with his funny stories for a few minutes on Sunday morning. This sorry situation is based on sheer emotionalism in both the preacher and the hearers.<\/span><\/p>\n Solid, plain, unvarnished preaching of the Gospel is repulsive to this class of spiritual-weakling pulpiteers and those who pay their keep. Such are those who think the congregation will die without a gymnasium for basketball, volleyball, and exercise classes. It just cannot have a successful \u201coutreach\u201d program without it! (Outreach<\/em> is another one of those \u201cin\u201d words the liberals borrowed from the denominations and some faithful brethren have borrowed from the liberals. Outreach<\/em> is another \u201cin\u201d word I would like to \u201cout-throw.\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n Some congregations shamelessly show reruns of the Andy Griffith Show<\/em> and Mayberry RFD<\/em> and talk about the \u201cfamily values\u201d they include in place of what once were Bible classes on Sunday mornings and Wednesday nights. Some show movies (complete with popcorn) and invite the public in order to \u201cwin souls.\u201d One congregation produced and performed in its auditorium the rock opera, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat<\/em>, as its major \u201coutreach\u201d effort of the year.<\/span><\/p>\n We have observed many imaginative gimmicks the last few years that bypassed Gospel preaching in an effort to produce numerical and\/or spiritual growth. One fellow made rounds with his \u201cGymnastics to the Glory of God\u201d show. (He may be old enough now that he has had to change it to \u201cGeriatrics to the Glory of God.\u201d) One brother put together an act called \u201cMagic for the Master\u201d about twenty years ago. He and I had a brief discussion about his work on one occasion, and he handed me one of his calling cards as we parted. I later happened to turn the card over and found that he was multi-talented. The backside advertised \u201cJuggling for Jesus.\u201d These silly sashays into sensationalism fit right in with the \u201cclown ministry\u201d in some congregations. I would be pleased to learn where any such gadgets for the supposed purpose of evangelism or doing anything else pertaining to the Lord\u2019s kingdom are authorized in the Scriptures.<\/span><\/p>\n Some congregations (most of them large and liberal in metropolitan areas) have so loaded themselves with \u201cministerial staffs\u201d that one punster has referred to the phenomenon as a religious \u201cstaff infection.\u201d The Richland Hills \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d (a misnamed denomination that was a sound congregation thirty-five years ago) just north of Fort Worth, Texas, boasts the following list and photographs of twenty-two persons (three of whom are women) under \u201cOur Ministers\u201d on its Website:[6]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Not to be out done, a church bulletin in Atlanta, Georgia, listed a \u201cMinister of Socio-Economic and Political Affairs,\u201d and another listed a \u201cMinister of the Parking Lot.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Does not this list show a woeful respect of persons? Why did they leave out a \u201cMinister of the Middle-aged,\u201d a \u201cMinister of the Married,\u201d a \u201cMinister of the Men,\u201d a \u201cMinister of the Women,\u201d a \u201cMinister of the Employers,\u201d a \u201cMinister of the Employees,\u201d and others? \u201cBut that\u2019s ridiculous,\u201d someone says, \u201cfor the New Testament forbids such distinctions as men-women and rich-poor. We are all one in Christ.\u201d This is precisely my point, as Paul emphasized: \u201cThere can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus\u201d (Gal. 3:28). Neither do we see any special attention given in the New Testament church to single folk, young folk, old folk, or other subgroups one might delineate. Such represents a specialization concept that is all right in the field of medicine, but that God never ordained for His church. Such artificial divisions tend toward segmentation of various groups within the local congregation. They imply a deficiency in the Gospel and the church as given by Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n To some it is not enough to preach only the Gospel and let it cause people to obey, thus letting the church grow as God gives the increase. They must attempt to stimulate artificial growth by various means. These misguided brethren run in a circle. They are offering social and recreational activities and services and employing psychological manipulation in their long litany of \u201cprograms\u201d and \u201cministries.\u201d Such things have a strong appeal to the general public, especially to materialistic and worldly folk. When these freebies (which may have little or nothing to do with the Bible) start drawing the crowds, the manipulators say, \u201cGod must be pleased with what we are doing. Look how He is blessing us with growth!\u201d So they add some additional come-ons and gimmicks and even more people come.<\/span><\/p>\n They err, however, in crediting God for such \u201cgrowth.\u201d By their own scheming and promotionalism they attract the crowds, and any enterprise\u2014secular or religious\u2014 could swell its clientele by such measures. Congregations that boast of great numerical growth by such means have little more of God and His Gospel in them than any other high-powered entertainment, social, or business operation. They simply hide behind a quasi-religious mask. Church growth that is thus artificially stimulated can only produce artificial growth. Whatever it takes to get the crowd there, it will take more of it to keep the crowd coming back. God said that rebellious Israel engaged in practices \u201cwhich I commanded not, neither came it into my mind\u201d (Jer. 7:31). I believe He would say the same thing about the practices described above. All such innovations go back to one starting point\u2014a failure to preach (and practice) only<\/strong> the Gospel.<\/span><\/p>\n Preachers Must Preach ALL of the Gospel<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Paul reminded the Ephesian elders that while he was among them preaching the Gospel, he \u201cshrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God\u201d (Acts 20:27). The Lord promised the apostles He would send the Holy Spirit Who would teach them all<\/strong> things, bring to their remembrance all<\/strong> that He had taught them, and guide them into all<\/strong> the Truth (John 14:26; 16:13). God has inspired all<\/strong> Scripture so as to furnish us completely unto every<\/strong> good work (2 Tim. 3:16\u201317). Only when all<\/strong> of the Gospel is preached and received do we have all<\/strong> things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3). Through God\u2019s grace, He has given us the faith once for all<\/strong> delivered (Jude 3). A Gospel \u201cin part\u201d is a defective message; it is no Gospel at all.<\/span><\/p>\n We often hear of the need for \u201cbalanced\u201d preaching. This is a worthy concern as long as \u201cbalance\u201d is Scripturally defined. However, to some, \u201cbalanced\u201d preaching is that which is never \u201cnegative,\u201d confrontational, dogmatic, or authoritative, but which predominantly dwells on \u201cgrace\u201d and \u201clove\u201d (as they define them) and which is couched in terms of insipid suggestions. I suggest that the only way anyone can be sure he is doing \u201cbalanced\u201d preaching is to preach \u201cthe whole counsel of God.\u201d Ironically, to so preach nowadays is to be accused of doing \u201cunbalanced\u201d preaching by the liberal element.<\/span><\/p>\n Our age is cursed not only with having those who preach outright error. Many men who stand in our pulpits preach the Truth on the subjects they address. The problem is that they just do not ever \u201cget around\u201d to preaching on certain topics and themes. Thus, while they do not preach blatant error, they preach only a measure of the Truth. We must understand that to deliberately preach less than the entire Gospel message is but another means of preaching error\u2014and the devil is pleased. Those who preach must, to the very best of their abilities, settle for nothing less than the whole message in their preaching. Those who listen must demand the whole message from preachers.<\/span><\/p>\n This problem is a growing one in the church, and it has a triple thrust:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Many in the church will not tolerate hearing all<\/strong> of the Gospel. Some want to parade in public almost nude, keep their refrigerators stocked with beer, commit suicide by smoking or dipping, visit the bars and dance halls when they please, and continue in their God-forbidden marriages. Others cannot bear to hear strong \u201cdoctrinal\u201d preaching that exposes error and sets forth dogmatic Truth. The worst thing a preacher can do is to mention by name a man who is a false teacher. They would rather let their Baptist friends go to Hell believing Baptist doctrine than to hear their preacher identify the Baptist Church as a human order with no Biblical right to exist. Such brethren invented the sage advice: \u201cJust preach the Gospel and let everyone else alone.\u201d Another group in most local churches may be morally upright, but various ones among them are as stingy as Ebenezer Scrooge, forsake the assembly at will, or they have tongues that can curl a porcupine\u2019s quills. These folk are completely comfortable if the preacher preaches on baptism, the church, or the Lord\u2019s supper. They often get very testy, however, if the preaching reflects the \u201cwhole counsel of God\u201d so as to address their cherished sins.<\/span><\/p>\n In generations past, such folk would either repent or leave the congregation, but the last few years it has become increasingly common for them to stay and try to oust the preacher and\/or the elders who dared make them feel guilty. \u201cWe\u2019ll take our money and go elsewhere if you don\u2019t tone that preacher down. After all, he\u2019s just a hired hand.\u201d Those who will not tolerate the whole Gospel are exercising increasing dominance in local churches, and more and more good preachers are being fired because of their influence. It is not uncommon for congregations to keep the sinners and ask the preacher to leave, rather than vice versa.<\/span><\/p>\n 2. It seems that preachers in ever-growing numbers are unwilling to preach all<\/strong> the Gospel anymore. Far too many are content to ignore the morass of worldly behavior and liberal and denominational thinking characteristic of their respective congregations. Some of them have openly embraced the liberal lies, while others have just become pulpit puppets who are determined to keep their jobs at whatever compromise necessary. We should not confuse Gospel preachers with these \u201csemi-gospel sharers.\u201d These fellows are sanctimonious spiritual sissies who profess to be too \u201cloving\u201d and \u201ckind\u201d to get down in the trenches and wage war against the doctrinal errors and sins that have taken control of hundreds of congregations. They are more likely to excuse, defend, and embrace false teachers, rather than name and expose them. In doing so, they set themselves up as superior to the Lord, the apostle Paul, and indeed to all of God\u2019s prophets of both the Old and New Testaments.<\/span><\/p>\n Paul, in his powerful prophecy that fits our time so well, rebuked both preacher and hearer who could not tolerate all<\/strong> the Gospel:<\/span><\/p>\n Preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables (2 Tim. 4:2\u20134).<\/span><\/p>\n 3. Some<\/strong> congregations and schools are so far gone they recruit such \u201csemi-gospel sharers\u201d to fill their pulpits, classrooms, and lectureship rosters. To such erstwhile brethren, the cardinal sin is for the preacher to offend the most sensitive or liberal soul who hears them. (Of course, they care not if the Lord and other lovers of all the Truth are offended by their corrupted message.) Such folk would not knowingly let a plain-spoken Gospel preacher within five miles of their bailiwicks. Yet these same ones openly embrace, support, and even honor false teachers and factionists who long ago proved themselves to be Trojan horses in the kingdom. Elders and preachers in such congregations would never question any member\u2019s marital situation nor think of withdrawing from the most blatant sinner. The only thing that might move them to withdrawal of fellowship would be some \u201ctroublemaker\u201d who insisted on hearing the whole Gospel from the pulpit and the classrooms.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n One will not pursue his determination to preach all<\/strong> the Gospel very long without being tested for doing so. He will perhaps even be tempted sometimes by the rich, by the powerful, by friends, or even by family, not to preach it fully, but he must not yield. To be Gospel preachers we must remain committed to preaching not merely some, much, or even most of the Gospel, but all<\/strong> of it. We labor under the woe of God if we do anything less.<\/span><\/p>\n Preachers Must Preach the Gospel in the RIGHT WAY<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n There are right and wrong motives, spirits, and manners with which one may preach the Gospel. Paul wrote of such in his time: \u201cSome indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: the one do it of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel; but the other proclaim Christ of faction, not sincerely\u2026\u201d (Phi. 1:15\u201317). Every man who decides he wants to preach should carefully examine his motives for this decision, and he should continue to examine his motives during his preaching life. Further, all of us who preach should strive at all times to preach in a manner and spirit that comport with those of the inspired men. What elements can we glean from the way in which these men preached?<\/span><\/p>\n We Must Preach Out of Love<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Any lesser motive would have soon failed the Lord and the apostles, given the trials and perils their preaching provoked. The love that moved them was two-fold, and rightly ordered. Most of all they loved God, followed closely by their love for the souls of men (Mat. 22:37\u201339). Paul\u2019s reminds us that, even if we can speak (preach) fluently in the languages of men and angels and prophesy powerfully, without love our preaching amounts to noise-making (1 Cor. 13:1\u20132).<\/span><\/p>\n One should also preach in a loving manner, as Paul urged: \u201cspeaking the truth in love\u201d (Eph. 4:15). If one\u2019s motivation to preach is love, it is likely that his manner of preaching will follow suit. Love will not allow one to intentionally and unnecessarily offend those who hear him just for the sake of offending them. However, the same love will not allow him to withhold the Truth his hearers need for fear of offending some of them. The Old Testament prophets, the Lord, and the apostles often offended those who heard them preach. To preach in love does not mean mere softness or sweetness. The inspired men of old often spoke in terms that were neither. \u201cLove\u201d must never be used as an excuse for compromising the Gospel or ignoring sin and error. Contrariwise, Biblical love demands, rather than prevents, the proclamation of the Truth in a straightforward, uncompromising manner. If we bowed to the demands for \u201cloving\u201d preaching as some define it, no sinner would ever learn his need of a Savior. Woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel out of love.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n We Must Preach with Simplicity<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The Gospel is basically a very simple message. Admittedly, it is deep and complex in some of its subjects and parts, but men tend to complicate its simplest features. Paul possessed education and ability to the point of eloquence, as various portions of his epistles prove. However, when he addressed the erudite philosophers of his day in Athens, his message was a model of simple, direct terms (Acts 17:23\u201331). Paul could have addressed the citizens of Corinth (also a seat of learning and culture) with \u201cexcellency of speech or of wisdom,\u201d but instead made the crucified Christ his theme (1 Cor. 2:1\u20132). Later, when these brethren were fussing over the gift of tongues, he wrote them that he would rather speak five words that they could understand than ten thousand words they could not understand (14:19). Both Peter and Jude warn that a trademark of false teachers is the use of \u201cgreat swelling words\u201d (2 Pet. 2:18; Jude 16).<\/span><\/p>\n The Truth did not sweep like a prairie fire across the frontier of the fledgling United States in the first half of the nineteenth century on the shoulders of theologians with PhDs. Without question there were intellectual giants such as Alexander Campbell, J.W. McGarvey, Moses E. Lard, and others who contributed much. For the most part, however, the restored church grew so rapidly mostly from the preaching of men with little formal education, but who possessed a great zeal and love for the Bible.<\/span><\/p>\n It may come as a shock to many that they used the King James Version. The excuse so many give for wanting to produce, introduce, and\/or use recently published, \u201cmodern-speech\u201d versions of the Bible is that the King James Version is too difficult for moderns to understand. Poppycock! From its general acceptance in 1644 until 1885 it was the only English Bible in circulation. It was the Bible of the men who heralded the great plea for restoration. Were they more literate than the recent generations? Although I use the 1901 American Standard Version in my studies and preaching, I nonetheless count the King James Version as reliable and worthy of great respect. There will doubtless be millions in Heaven who learned and obeyed the Truth from that impossible-to-understand version.<\/span><\/p>\n Those who argue that the modern versions use simpler words have a point. In fact, some modern versions have \u201csimplified\u201d much of the Truth right off of the page. I would much rather explain to my grandchildren the meaning of such terms as \u201cwot not,\u201d \u201cto wit,\u201d \u201cHoly Ghost,\u201d \u201ccompassed about,\u201d<\/em> and others in the KJV text than to attempt to explain why such terms as \u201csinful nature,\u201d \u201cSaturday night\u201d <\/em>(observance of the Lord\u2019s supper), \u201cfaith alone\u201d<\/em> (as sufficient for salvation), and other such errors are in a book with Holy Bible<\/em> on its cover. Those who excuse publication of the unending and confusing plethora of new versions often allege the \u201cinability\u201d of people to understand such older versions as the KJV and the ASV. However, the dirty little secret of the real driving force behind the incessant publication of versions is money from their sales. I oppose the extremists who anathematize every version besides the King James. But I also oppose the extremists who would cast it on history\u2019s ash heap as a relic which modern man has outgrown. If our great-great-great-grandparents could read, understand, obey, and preach from it, surely we can today.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Many theologians are as bad about using \u201ctheologese\u201d as lawyers are about using \u201clegalese\u201d when they speak and write. Consider the following example from one who for seventeen years was touted as one of its \u201cscholars\u201d by Abilene Christian University:<\/span><\/p>\n There should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who believe that Christ is the son of God, but who differ on eschatological theories such as premillennialism, ecclesiological matters such as congregational organization, or soteriological matters such as whether baptism is \u201cfor\u201d or \u201cbecause of\u201d the remission of sins.[7]<\/a><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I do not know how much it cost this man to get his doctoral degrees from Vanderbilt in Nashville, Tennessee, and from St. Andrew\u2019s in Scotland, but I believe he more than wasted his money. Eschatological, ecclesiological, <\/em>and soteriological<\/em> are hardly words that come down the pike most of us live on every day. Even if his readers know what they mean, however, what he said about them was nothing short of heresy. He is teaching that premillennialism and anti-ism should not be fellowship issues and Baptist doctrine on the purpose of baptism is just as good as Bible doctrine. While it was not true that Paul\u2019s \u201cmuch learning\u201d had made him mad (Acts 26:24), I am not so sure that these words do not fit this apostate brother and his elitist comrades. (Imagine the destructive influence this man has had as he has taught precious young people for seventeen years.)<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n